inspect_form

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 采集, combined with the listed outputs, conveys a read-only inspection operation and tells the agent what it will receive. It does not explicitly state 'no side effects', but the inspection framing makes the behavior clear enough.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One dense sentence front-loads the action and resource, listst the collected elements, and ends with usage purpose. There is no filler, and each clause contributes to an agent's understanding of when and how to invoke it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description enumerates the main return components — field list, current values, dropdown options, add-more buttons — so an agent can anticipate the result. It could be more explicit about exact return shape or failure behavior, but for a single optional-parameter inspection tool it is largely sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers the only parameter, url, 100% with a description of optional navigation and collection. The tool description adds the key semantic that omitting url inspects the current form while providing one navigates and inspects a given URL, which goes beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb, 采集, and a specific resource, 网申表单结构, and enumerates exactly what is collected: fields with msg semantics, current values, dropdown options, and available 'add more' buttons. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools navigate, fill_form, and verify_form.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the intended context: 用于 Agent 语义规划, which signals use during semantic planning rather than execution. It does not explicitly name fill_form or verify_form as alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the top score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.